Radicalization is a process by which groups use extreme political and pseudo-religious ideas to undermine the general social consensus and subvert individual freedoms. History has shown that countries that allowed this process to go unchecked ultimately faced decline or extinction.

Germany, Italy in the past and more recently Afghanistan & Pakistan stand as examples of what happens when bigotry is given a free run.

Afghanistan & Iran used to be progressive, liberal states. The majority of the population was Muslim, but they were also model liberal states. What changed? An Ayatollah based in France became the face of the campaign to take on the corrupt Shah of Iran. While the stated intent was to dethrone a corrupt Shah, the side-effect of that campaign was a society radicalized on Islam. Ditto in Afghanistan, where a "Maulana Diesel" radicalized an entire generation of Pashtuns to fight the Communist regime. And where did this take Afghanistan? These before and after pictures tell the story of this evolution.

As democracies across the world face a renewed onslaught on freedom from radicals, we need to steel ourselves to take on this scourge. The rising trend of Hate Crimes against minorities and immigrants in the USA & India is a warning sign liberals should not ignore. France, Germany & other European countries are also showing a worrying trend towards hate crimes driven by politicians.

Liberals cannot afford to look the other way. Let us document and call out hate crimes when we see it and not turn and look the other away.

Those pictures from Afghanistan show a miniscule privileged elite. Not what the reality was for 99% back then. There were much bigger and more complicated issues in Afghanistan back then. Especially outsiders should not instigate violence to further their own goals. It is better to go slow and let things develop at their own place. Do not start fires so they don't spread out of control. Ignoring the issues of vast majorities of people in favor of already privileged elites is also a pitfall to be avoided. I myself don't care much about religion. I hope others respect that like they do me keeping out of their religious affairs.

I am not familiar enough about Us politics but I would be very careful in drawing too close analogies between European societies like that. Even if there are economic similarities. Maybe some of Us members would be best to offer their insights.

The opposition locally towards new minorities comes as people fear for their livelihood , healthcare and pensions. Big numbers of low to non skilled newcomers are a contradiction here. Regarding minorities , the ones you mean , even in small homogeneous societies there are different kind of minorities maybe due to historical reasons. Liberal elites constantly ignore this let alone offer no solutions. I think this is behind the blue collar conservatives recent gains. The same rhetoric has been going around for decades so nothing new here. Different was the prospects of most people were improving not stagnating or declining back then. And social media in its current form did not exist.

The analogies coming from a few in vogue countries (often with a popular language) where even the common mediocre people get good job opportunities or from the sheltered countries with tough exclusionary immigration policies are not good enough. I see the first case Germany the latter Canada and Australia. The cherry picker countries are down the line still somewhat better than the UAE which gets called out for its labour policies. None are truly global models I would like repeated everywhere. Not that sweatshops are good anywhere in the world, even if they are hidden out of sight. Saying there are x-billion people poorer than you, know your place is a rare but very honest response.

Classic peasant uprisings , left right civil wars from a hundred years ago or communist revolutions come to mind. There is currently nothing on the horizon like this and has not been for a decades. The 70s red brigades , raf etc had only a few cartoonist caricatures which despite outside support made little to no lasting gains on a big scale. Many things are much better than back then in Europe

Finally someone agrees that it is radicalism (religious or otherwise) that is taking over and destroying the world. Here in the US, it is a kind of (relative) "civilized radicalism" that has infiltrated both sides of the US political structure.

And on Afghanistan, Communism and the Soviet influence was doing wonders for them before the Afghan-Soviet War broke out.

You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.

The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.

Most hate crime in Western Europe is committed by minorities themselves. Yet liberals somehow don't see a problem there - they just accept Islamic terrorism as if it was unavoidable, and proceed to blame European natives for racism.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr

The analogies coming from a few in vogue countries (often with a popular language) where even the common mediocre people get good job opportunities or from the sheltered countries with tough exclusionary immigration policies are not good enough. I see the first case Germany the latter Canada and Australia.

"Canada is among the world's most generous nations for immigrants....."

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

Nonsense.

Getting rid of the present gunmen of Chicago will create a vacuum which, you might have heard, nature abhors.

Unless and until you revise the system that produces gunmen, the gunmen-in-training academy will simply continue to produce new gunmen to fill the vacuum.

You are fortunate to have been trained to be peaceful rather than to be a gunman. You probably did not suffer the ill-education, poverty, discrimination, lack of parenting and lack of other cultural influences that the gunmen-in-training suffered.

Perhaps, just maybe, if we cure society's ills we will rid all of our Chicagos of gunmen, Maybe.

It will not be done by praying for peace or by hoping for gunmen to reform themselves.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

Chicago is a completely different animal. That is a combination of easily accessible weapons and a "do unto them before they do unto me" mentality.

From what I have seen, countries where the rich get richer and the poor are force fed religion are the ones where radicalization are. There is nothing wrong with the rich and there is nothing wrong with religion. As long as those two things are kept separate and also away from government, there is no problem. The problems come from the people with gold plated everything telling those scavenging for a living that a book of fantasy is the solution to wealth.

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

Chicago is a completely different animal. That is a combination of easily accessible weapons and a "do unto them before they do unto me" mentality.

From what I have seen, countries where the rich get richer and the poor are force fed religion are the ones where radicalization are. There is nothing wrong with the rich and there is nothing wrong with religion. As long as those two things are kept separate and also away from government, there is no problem. The problems come from the people with gold plated everything telling those scavenging for a living that a book of fantasy is the solution to wealth.

Seb, I suspect you do not reside in the Chicago area (I do). You have quite an abstract view of the situation.

Thousands of programs, theories, commissions, etc. and countless studies/debates continue. Certainly not the sole cause, but almost certainly a major, if not THE major, contributor has been identified in nearly all cases. Little or no action has been taken as this is one of those ‘third rail of politics’ areas: WELFARE MOMS.

This isn't anything new. People enjoy fighting. Typically, the side that is most powerful, and most skillful at killing, is the side that wins and has a nice quality of life.

If we want to defeat radicalism then we need to learn how to identify an kill the people responsible (and I mean that in justified situations only). It is the same thing with urban crime. If we can identify each gunman in Chicago, and lawfully kill those gunmen, then urban crime in Chicago is completely solved. Although my life is peaceful I am not under some illusion that it wasn't created with violence. It was absolutely created on a foundation of strength.

Chicago is a completely different animal. That is a combination of easily accessible weapons and a "do unto them before they do unto me" mentality.

From what I have seen, countries where the rich get richer and the poor are force fed religion are the ones where radicalization are. There is nothing wrong with the rich and there is nothing wrong with religion. As long as those two things are kept separate and also away from government, there is no problem. The problems come from the people with gold plated everything telling those scavenging for a living that a book of fantasy is the solution to wealth.

Seb, I suspect you do not reside in the Chicago area (I do). You have quite an abstract view of the situation.

Thousands of programs, theories, commissions, etc. and countless studies/debates continue. Certainly not the sole cause, but almost certainly a major, if not THE major, contributor has been identified in nearly all cases. Little or no action has been taken as this is one of those ‘third rail of politics’ areas: WELFARE MOMS.

And there it is. Typical right wing response is to blame big gub'mint because one Black woman one time was thought to have been driving a Cadillac to a "welfare" office to get her gub'mint money. Parents do not make enough to stay home long enough to help their kids. They are paid scraps and have to work long hours every day just to live in a rat hole. Kids fall into the wrong crowd and find selling dope and pimping makes way more money than being in school. But, blame "welfare queens" if that helps you sleep at night....

Chicago is a completely different animal. That is a combination of easily accessible weapons and a "do unto them before they do unto me" mentality.

From what I have seen, countries where the rich get richer and the poor are force fed religion are the ones where radicalization are. There is nothing wrong with the rich and there is nothing wrong with religion. As long as those two things are kept separate and also away from government, there is no problem. The problems come from the people with gold plated everything telling those scavenging for a living that a book of fantasy is the solution to wealth.

Seb, I suspect you do not reside in the Chicago area (I do). You have quite an abstract view of the situation.

Thousands of programs, theories, commissions, etc. and countless studies/debates continue. Certainly not the sole cause, but almost certainly a major, if not THE major, contributor has been identified in nearly all cases. Little or no action has been taken as this is one of those ‘third rail of politics’ areas: WELFARE MOMS.

And there it is. Typical right wing response is to blame big gub'mint because one Black woman one time was thought to have been driving a Cadillac to a "welfare" office to get her gub'mint money. Parents do not make enough to stay home long enough to help their kids. They are paid scraps and have to work long hours every day just to live in a rat hole. Kids fall into the wrong crowd and find selling dope and pimping makes way more money than being in school. But, blame "welfare queens" if that helps you sleep at night....

Don't care what color you are if you cant afford to feed em don't breed em!! The problem I have with liberal thinking is personal responsibility never enters into anything it is always someone elses fault. It is never the fault of the individual. Too many keep pumping out kids who wind up growing up on the streets then they become OUR problem. I would love to see welfare ended for any woman who already has one and is on welfare then has another kid need to stop this madness.

Seb, I suspect you do not reside in the Chicago area (I do). You have quite an abstract view of the situation.

Thousands of programs, theories, commissions, etc. and countless studies/debates continue. Certainly not the sole cause, but almost certainly a major, if not THE major, contributor has been identified in nearly all cases. Little or no action has been taken as this is one of those ‘third rail of politics’ areas: WELFARE MOMS.

And there it is. Typical right wing response is to blame big gub'mint because one Black woman one time was thought to have been driving a Cadillac to a "welfare" office to get her gub'mint money. Parents do not make enough to stay home long enough to help their kids. They are paid scraps and have to work long hours every day just to live in a rat hole. Kids fall into the wrong crowd and find selling dope and pimping makes way more money than being in school. But, blame "welfare queens" if that helps you sleep at night....

Don't care what color you are if you cant afford to feed em don't breed em!! The problem I have with liberal thinking is personal responsibility never enters into anything it is always someone elses fault. It is never the fault of the individual. Too many keep pumping out kids who wind up growing up on the streets then they become OUR problem. I would love to see welfare ended for any woman who already has one and is on welfare then has another kid need to stop this madness.

There are very easy ways to tell if a woman is having kids just to game the system. There are also those exact same ways to tell if a woman can not make ends meet with the kids she has. Several things come to mind that will enhance all of this. One is easily available contraception but, since this is a Christian nation, we can not allow that. We can not allow adoption to gay couples, either because, again, Christian nation. Sex ed? Nope. Kids don't need to know about such dirty filth.

Since welfare fraud is such a pandemic in this country (as you believe it is) YOUR party is now in control of everything and can cut everyone off. Isn't that a great idea? Let's starve everyone! Yay for freedom!

One last thing: Why only a woman? Why only a mother? What about men who are raising kids alone? What about stable couples raising kids alone? Why it only one woman with a brood?

Let's be clear - religious or political extremism is not the same thing as inner city violence. However, they do have some common themes or causes, and ones which are clear to anyone who has ever taken a 100-level sociology or criminology class.

People want a sense of purpose. They want to be a part of a community. They want to build a better life for themselves or those they care about. They want to unite with those similar to themselves against the scary outsiders. They are the result of their surroundings.

In impoverished communities in the Islamic world, they find that purpose in radical faith, with promises of God's love and rewards. They listen to politicized preachers who define the "us" and the "them", then endorse horrendous violence as a means to achieve radical ends. They are told about scapegoats like Israel and the United States, and are promised a glorious afterlife with riches and rewards.

In gangland Chicago, young men, often without father figures and with next to no career prospects, are given few options save for gang membership and drug slinging. They are given a purpose, a community, male role models, and promises of glory and riches (if they survive and rise through the ranks). They learn (or are taught) to hate authority, justified or not (and yes, it often is justified).

There are sociological and political causes for both of these phenomena - from terrible foreign policy decisions to drug laws and changes to our social services and structures. But ultimately all people are responsible for their own actions. The imam who politicizes his faith; the jihadi who takes up arms; the father who runs away when his partner announces she is pregnant; the son who spends his paycheck on new sneakers instead of a bus ticket to somewhere better.

But it's a hell of a lot easier to blame someone else for your problems.

Liberals cannot afford to look the other way. Let us document and call out hate crimes when we see it and not turn and look the other away.

Oh STFU. You're no liberal. You're a left wing extremist. You were educated in the extreme-left Jawaharlal Nehru University, a bastion of violent deep red Marxist and Maoist ideology. You support Islamic terrorists like Afzal the non-guru. You consort with people who openly advocate secessionism. You're a journalist in the left wing press.

You want to be taken seriously ? Stop pretending what you're not. A liberal is someone who openly accepts and considers all divergent political ideologies as equally relevant and important to a balanced polity. The very fact that you spend all your time babbling about the Hindu right and spouting your hatred of Hindus disqualifies you as a liberal. You're an outright hard left Marxist running around pretending to be something else. The English term for that is scoundrel.

You want an example of the radicalization of society ? Here you go:That, gentlemen, is the Kashi Viswanath Temple in Benares/Varanasi, one of the holiest Hindu places. Well, part of it is the temple. The rest is the Gyanvapi Mosque, which the Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb ordered built upon the half demolished remnants of one of Hinduism's most holiest temples.

The people in India who shed crocodile tears about 'radicalization' are the same people who support the existence of these hideous warts inflicted upon the faith of the land.

Most hate crime in Western Europe is committed by minorities themselves. Yet liberals somehow don't see a problem there - they just accept Islamic terrorism as if it was unavoidable, and proceed to blame European natives for racism.

There are many liberals which do see the problem and want to speak about the problems immigration is causing in Europe. If you ever left your cave and spoke to people........ I'm more worried about people like you that want to use terrorism to push their own political agenda and push your crazy right wing ideology on everybody.

You want to be taken seriously ? Stop pretending what you're not. A liberal is someone who openly accepts and considers all divergent political ideologies as equally relevant and important to a balanced polity. The very fact that you spend all your time babbling about the Hindu right and spouting your hatred of Hindus disqualifies you as a liberal. You're an outright hard left Marxist running around pretending to be something else. The English term for that is scoundrel.

I dont need to take lessons in liberalism from a bhakt bought up on fascist RSS ideology spewing hatred & bigotry against Christians & muslims.

We speak out equally against radicalization of societies irrespective of religion. The hard core Owaisi-bhakt Isalmo-fascists call us names, just like you do. We must be doing something right.

As for Afzal non-guru - we believe that the Indian army's brutal clampdown on Kashmiri rights goes against the Indian constitution. For neo-fascist "nationalists" like you, Kashmir is just a piece of land you covet - Kashmiris can go to hell. We challenge that discourse.

Our campaign is about Kashmir and the Kashmiri people - It has nothing to do with Afzal Guru. Afzal Guru is just a boogey-man that the RSS has latched on to - just like the NAzi's in Germany.

BarfBag wrote:

The people in India who shed crocodile tears about 'radicalization' are the same people who support the existence of these hideous warts inflicted upon the faith of the land.

Here's the difference @BarfBag - We condemn radicalisation when we see it - You bring up these "hideous warts" inflicted 5 centuries ago to justify inflicting your own warts on the people today. It might make sense to you - it doesnt make sense to normal people.

But I thank you for showing us with your example just how far the radicalization of Indian society has gone. Thank you again!

Simple the multicultural expirement that's been played out over the past 50 or so years has been a failure. It's about time this was recognised by more people (to her credit Merkel said it was a failure not long ago). We need to stop trying to force different ethnicities to like each other and live happily together, it really doesn't work all that well, of course there are exceptions but thyey are not the norm.

Simple the multicultural expirement that's been played out over the past 50 or so years has been a failure. It's about time this was recognised by more people (to her credit Merkel said it was a failure not long ago). We need to stop trying to force different ethnicities to like each other and live happily together, it really doesn't work all that well, of course there are exceptions but thyey are not the norm.

India's tryst with communal harmony goes a lot more than just 50 years. Hindus & Muslims united to fight the British back in 1857. We lost. and the century that followed saw the British use their time-honored tactic of divide-and-rule between Hindus & Muslims the legacy of which continues to this day. The British played a similar game in the Middle-East as well - pitting the Sunni's against the Shia's - again its legacy today is radical Islam spreading its poison in the region. In 1947, the Indian leadership led by Gandhi-Nehru & Patel worked on healing the wounds with some success. But it now looks like the radicalization has spread.

I wouldn't give up on my country yet. Its the majority community that must rise up to defend Hinduism and India from the threat of radical Hindu terrorism as espoused by the RSS. No one else can do it! It is our sacred duty. If we give in now, 10 years from now people in the west will talk of "Hindu Terror" the way they talk of "Islamic Terror". Its Religion & Dharma that gets blamed for the activities of terrorists like ISIS & RSS.

Don't know many of them, but at least some rightist liberal politicians seem to acknowledge the problem. Many of them think reforming (or getting rid of) the social welfare system is the solution. Admittedly it's true that if we get rid of it most problems with migration will be gone, the troublemakers tend to move here only because we give them free money. However personally I would prefer to keep the social welfare system for Finnish citizen and simply restrict migration, something few liberals seem to support.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr

Don't know many of them, but at least some rightist liberal politicians seem to acknowledge the problem. Many of them think reforming (or getting rid of) the social welfare system is the solution. Admittedly it's true that if we get rid of it most problems with migration will be gone, the troublemakers tend to move here only because we give them free money. However personally I would prefer to keep the social welfare system for Finnish citizen and simply restrict migration, something few liberals seem to support.

How far right do these liberals have to go before they lose the right to be called rightest "liberals". Are you so liberal that there is no limit to your liberalness?

Please understand that I am really trying to come to grips with your terminology. I'd hate to think that you are just making these things up.

Thanks.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

Simple the multicultural expirement that's been played out over the past 50 or so years has been a failure. It's about time this was recognised by more people (to her credit Merkel said it was a failure not long ago). We need to stop trying to force different ethnicities to like each other and live happily together, it really doesn't work all that well, of course there are exceptions but thyey are not the norm.

That is an extremely sad statement. You speak about the last 50, well the few thousands before that weren't too good either. The last 50 years probably have been the most peacefull in human history.

I feel the problem is human nature to choose bad leaders. On micro-scale (within a neighbourhood) or on large scale (president), people who would be portayed as the bad guys in movies often manage to get people to choose them as leader. Because they are hard, tough, say the words that need to be said, they make you feel good in a community by naming others their enemies. They thrive on conflict. And they often do get conflict. Which then justifies more conflict on both sides.What's that to do with failed multicultural experiments you think? Well, cultural differences are the preferred point to shoot at for those conflict-loving people. On both sides of the fence.

Humans are inherently weak and stupid. And I fear we really need that 3rd world war before people find reason again.

Pretty horrifying to learn what's been going on for the last 50 years.

Agreed.Yet I fail to see how that wiki page justifies your "what planet"-remark. While we became far more efficient in killing people (thumbs up for mankind!), and there are far more people on the planet, you need to scroll down quite a bit in the war list by death toll to find a recent one.

In general, I'm quite sure in all of history, there has never been a safer time to live in than now. But feel free to put me on another planet again and show me data that shows there are is generally more violence in current time than in the past.

While we became far more efficient in killing people (thumbs up for mankind!), and there are far more people on the planet, you need to scroll down quite a bit in the war list by death toll to find a recent one.

To find a recent WHAT? A recent war with high death toll?

How safe would you feel if you lived in Syria today? Most of Africa? Afghanistan, Iraq?

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

The analogies coming from a few in vogue countries (often with a popular language) where even the common mediocre people get good job opportunities or from the sheltered countries with tough exclusionary immigration policies are not good enough. I see the first case Germany the latter Canada and Australia.

"Canada is among the world's most generous nations for immigrants....."

But of course Canada helps for humanitarian reasons. As should everyone. This decade old link puts the humanitarian group as the smallest one. The other groups are there for economic benefits to Canada. The possible strings and conditions with family reunification would be interesting. Here there is now an minimum income requirement.

I suspect the sponsorship system is also used to lessen the economic impact of taking in refugees as it could skew the intake in some way. Trudeau used the refugees as a political tool to enhance his and Canada's brand. I so often hear people touting Canada as the perfect society. That may be true but it has to be understood in the context where it's migration policies have the main priority to increase the economic well-being of it's residents. One should not just paint Canada as an utopia with rainbows and singing moose. Canada has a well thought out system to this. The public perception would be different over there too if large numbers of people lacking education , job and language skills would be there needing housing , healthcare and education.

One needs to separate refugees and other migrants. Those are separate issues. We need a comparison of Canada vs different European countries where one compares education , work history and language skills of migrants. Note also some countries in Europe have people leaving while others have people coming in. Compare say Germany vs Latvia. A very complicated​ picture. Also one needs to see where people are on the employer vs worker side. A laid middle aged storage worker whose adult children have it difficult is going to see things differently than a big employer.

While we became far more efficient in killing people (thumbs up for mankind!), and there are far more people on the planet, you need to scroll down quite a bit in the war list by death toll to find a recent one.

To find a recent WHAT? A recent war with high death toll?

How safe would you feel if you lived in Syria today? Most of Africa? Afghanistan, Iraq?

Then enlighten me, what age you think about as "better times than today"?Also, if you put "most of Africa" in the same line as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, then I get to doubt the quality of your argumentation.